Wolters Kluwer Health
may email you for journal alerts and information, but is committed
to maintaining your privacy and will not share your personal information without
your express consent. For more information, please refer to our Privacy Policy.

Some error has occurred while processing your request. Please try after some time.

My name is Peter Whang and I am one of the members of the Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Editorial Board who has been asked by Spine to evaluate several of the most important studies in the field of spine surgery that have been published in prominent journals over the past 6 months and develop recommendations for clinical practice based upon a critical assessment of the available evidence.I hope you have had the opportunity to read our most recent installment which was published in the July 1 issue of Spine.The primary purposes of this article were to summarize these studies, perform a methodologic review in order to elucidate their relative strengths and weaknesses, and determine if these results justify any changes in the so-called “standard of care” for spine surgery.

My fellow members and I consider The Spinal Column blog as an opportunity to receive direct feedback from the readers about this process and to discuss the conclusions we have drawn from each of these investigations, many of which are bound to be at least somewhat controversial.For instance, we analyzed two prospective, randomized trials comparing vertebroplasty to a sham procedure (Buchbinder et al. and Kallmes et al.) that were published together in The New England Journal of Medicine last year.1,2Although these studies appear to provide Level 1 evidence suggesting that vertebroplasty does not confer any significant advantages over placebo, both studies exhibit significant limitations which we felt did not warrant the complete abandonment of this treatment option for vertebral compression fractures.From my experience with cement augmentation largely involving kyphoplasty (which was not specifically addressed in these clinical trials), Iwould maintain that patients clearly experience rapid and significant pain relief which I believe is more favorable than the natural history of vertebral compression fractures.This is an example of “cognitive dissonance” – how could this procedure be no better than placebo if patients do so well? Nevertheless, regardless of my personal feelings, it is these types of studies which need to be completed in order to definitively establish the efficacy of these interventions.

I also believe that the results of the Abdu et al. investigation comparing various fusion techniques (i.e. in situ posterolateral, instrumented posterolateral, or 360°) for degenerative spondylolisthesis using data from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) to be quite fascinating.3While there were some initial improvements in SF-36 bodily pain and physical function scores at 2 years with circumferential constructs, there were no significant differences noted between any of these cohorts after 4 years.Proponents of interbody arthrodesis cite many potential advantages such as the ability to achieve greater reduction and anterior column support which are thought to bring about enhanced radiographic and clinical outcomes; however, it does not appear as if these benefits are borne out in the existing literature at this point.We are certainly not suggesting that 360° fusions are not indicated for this application but are simply pointing out that there continues to be a paucity of Level 1 data that is able to differentiate between these different methods.Thus, for the time being it seems as if there are still many ways to “skin a cat” when it comes to treating degenerative slips.The SPORT study has generated some of the highest-quality evidence that has ever been published in this field.

Have any of these findings actually influenced the way you manage your patients?

Some error has occurred while processing your request. Please try after some time.

About the Blog

Spine Journal

This Blog provides a forum for discussion about high impact articles published in Spine, including the bi-annual publication of "Evidenced-Based Recommendations for Spine Surgery." Website users can use this forum to discuss how the articles have affected their practice and query the authors about their findings and recommendations.